Muito além da porta de entrada: as relações de comunicação no mundo do trabalho das pessoas com deficiência motora e suas contribuições no processo de inclusão social
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis proposes a link between communication, work and the social inclusion of people with motor disabilities from the perspective of the ontology of social being (Lukács, 2012).Based on the assumption that the imbrication of communication with work (Fígaro, 2008; 2009) confers self-recognition to every human being, this research aims to understand the meaning of the world of work for people with motor disabilities, which materializes through communication relationships and, in real situations, collaborates in the process of inclusion of these workers.Our hypothesis is that the binomial of communication and work makes it possible to understand the dramas of the use of self (Schwartz, 2004) that are configured in the sphere of work and that are posed in the development of the work activity of the people with motor disabilities.To do this, we began by establishing a conceptualization of disability, adding theoretical contributions from other areas such as user-centered design (Dantas, 2014), collective health (Vale de Almeida, 2004;Dejours, 2004;Birman, 2005; Ortega, 2006) and the critique of neoliberalism (Harvey, 2008), the latter being eclipsed by a discourse in which entrepreneurship (Boltanski;Chiapello, 2009;Ehrenberg, 2010;Standing, 2013;Bröckling, 2015;Dardot;Laval, 2016;Han, 2017) uses the idea of overcoming as a synonym for social inclusion.We also draw a brief historical and legal line on the subject until we reach the Quotas Law and the latest labor reform in Brazil, which show how job vacancies have been filled for this public (Brandão, 2023b).In the empirical section, we problematized the divergence of data on disability and people with disabilities through documentary analysis (Flick, 2008;Poupart et al., 2008) of official surveys.It should be noted that we carried out exploratory (Gil, 2008) and qualitative (Poupart et al., 2008) research based on methodological triangulation (Denzin; Lincoln, 2008; Moliani, 2020) of the following instruments: questionnaire (Thiollent, 1980), interviews (Medina, 1986) and field observation (Fernandes; 1980;Flick, 2008;Poupart et al., 2008) of the daily working life of a person with motor disability.The relations of communication in this specific world of work became evident with ergology (Schwartz, 2004; 2014;Durrive, 2002; Schwartz; Durrive, 2007; Rodrigues da Silva, 2021; 2022), which highlighted the unprecedented nature of work and the connections that the working disabled body mobilizes to carry out its craft.To the ergological approach, we added discourse analysis (Pêcheux, 1997; 2001; 2002;Brandão, 2004;Maingueneau, 2000; 2006; 2008a; 2008b; 2010) of the research subjects: organizations that work on behalf of people with disabilities, professional recruitment agencies, private corporations and workers who are people with motor disabilities.The results of this intersection reinforce that social inclusion, understood in the light of Paulo Freire´s doctrine (Alves, 2021;Freire, 2003; 2013), still has a long way to go in terms of full accessibility and equal opportunities for people with mobility disabilities in the workplace.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".